<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Young Australian Skeptics &#187; Debate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.youngausskeptics.com/category/debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com</link>
	<description>A sanctuary for young free-thinkers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:42:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Does nuclear energy have the answers we need?</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/07/does-nuclear-energy-have-the-answers-we-need/</link>
		<comments>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/07/does-nuclear-energy-have-the-answers-we-need/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luke Weston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luke Weston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critical thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Greens]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=6894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this opinion piece, published in The Age on March 9, 2010, Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam asserts that “Nuclear (energy) does not have the answers we need”. There’s quite a bit in this piece that I don’t consider to be well informed, accurate and unbiased — so I thought I would take a bit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/07/does-nuclear-energy-have-the-answers-we-need/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pseudoscientific Arguments — A Simple Guide For Proving Anything</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/04/pseudoscientific-arguments-a-simple-guide-for-proving-anything/</link>
		<comments>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/04/pseudoscientific-arguments-a-simple-guide-for-proving-anything/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tsunami</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pseudoscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Skeptic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[List]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=6216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While looking through the science section at EzineArticles.com, I found an article which disputed the reliability of twin studies in psychology research. This in itself is not a bad thing. There are some methodological issues with twin studies. But the author’s main arguments were that twin studies don’t involve DNA testing, that the research results [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/04/pseudoscientific-arguments-a-simple-guide-for-proving-anything/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thoughts on skeptical celebrities and anti-ideologies</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/02/thoughts-on-skeptical-celebrities-and-anti-ideologies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/02/thoughts-on-skeptical-celebrities-and-anti-ideologies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack Scanlan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Scanlan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pseudoscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Skeptic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homologous Legs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=5623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a post I recently wrote for my miniblog, but the reaction it received (not necessarily just through blog comments) has lead me to put it up on the main blog — and here on the Young Australian Skeptics website — where it’s most visible. It deals with something that might be considered a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/02/thoughts-on-skeptical-celebrities-and-anti-ideologies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boteach Vs Hitchens. A huge gulf in class.</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/12/boteach-vs-hitchens-a-huge-gulf-in-class/</link>
		<comments>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/12/boteach-vs-hitchens-a-huge-gulf-in-class/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Bayard</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Atheist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Bayard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christopher Hitchens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[god]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Dawkins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shmuley Boteach]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=5299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During a recent late-night attack of insomnia, spent cruising Youtube, I stumble on a debate from January 2008 between Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach. The link is here, it is a little on the long side at an hour and a half but it well worth the look, if only to see Hitchens in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/12/boteach-vs-hitchens-a-huge-gulf-in-class/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not A Religion?</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/not-a-religion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/not-a-religion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Fridman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Atheist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=5108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A technique used in religious debates that’s particularly annoying is the claim by a follower of religion X that “X is not a religion”. Some examples: Christianity: Christianity is not really a religion; it is a relationship with God. Source.This is the classic one, so you might be surprised to learn most religions don’t seem [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/not-a-religion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>References preferred when overturning modern biology</title>
		<link>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/10/references-preferred-when-overturning-modern-biology/</link>
		<comments>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/10/references-preferred-when-overturning-modern-biology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack Scanlan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Creationism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Scanlan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Bible]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=4607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The chance to have email debates with creationists is one of the reasons I write for the Young Australian Skeptics and have my own blog — I’m a debate junkie, actually. Nothing’s better than sinking your teeth into a few new arguments that you’ve never heard of, or at least taking the time to explain [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/10/references-preferred-when-overturning-modern-biology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
